COURT ALLOWS BUMPURS CASE TO BE TRIED

By DENNIS HEVESI

Published: November 26, 1986

New York State's highest court reinstated a manslaughter charge yesterday against a police officer who killed a knife-wielding, emotionally disturbed woman during an attempt to evict her from her Bronx apartment in 1984.

In its decision, the State Court of Appeals cited conflicting testimony about the number of seconds between two shotgun blasts fired by the officer, the second of which killed the 66-year-old woman, Eleanor Bumpurs.

The 6-to-1 ruling reversed two lower-court decisions that had vacated the second-degree manslaughter indictment handed up by a Bronx grand jury in January 1985. As a result, the indicted officer, Stephen Sullivan, 43 years old and a veteran of 19 years on the force, will be tried on the manslaughter charge.

In the lone dissent, Chief Justice Sol Wachtler said the evidence warranted either of the more serious charges of second-degree murder or first-degree manslaughter. Fellow Officer Attacked

Officer Sullivan, who was a member of the police department's Emergency Services Unit, testified before the grand jury that he had to fire two rounds from a pump-action, 12-gauge shotgun at Mrs. Bumpurs in order to stop her from attacking a fellow officer, who had fallen, with a kitchen knife. The shooting took place on Oct. 29, 1984, inside Mrs. Bumpurs's apartment in the Sedgwick Houses at 1551 University Avenue in the Morris Heights section of the Bronx.

On April 12, 1985, Acting Justice Vincent A. Vitale of State Supreme Court in the Bronx dismissed the manslaughter indictment, ruling that the evidence was ''legally insufficent.'' The Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court, in a 3-to-1 decision, affirmed Justice Vitale's decision.

But in its majority opinion yesterday, the Court of Appeals said: ''The question to be resolved in this case involves defendant's second shot, which led to Mrs. Bumpurs's death.'' Medical Testimony Cited

The officer testified before the grand jury ''that the first shot did not seem to deter Mrs. Bumpurs and that she continued to approach the downed officer with her knife,'' the Court of Appeals opinion continued. ''Thus, he testified, a second later, he fired the second shot. While the testimony of most observers corroborated this account, one witness estimated that the second shot was fired as many as five seconds later.''

The opinion also pointed to medical testimony that the first shot had blown off the thumb and index finger of the hand in which the 260-pound Mrs. Bumpurs was holding the knife, rendering her incapable of harming the downed police officer. On that basis, the court ruled, there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial on the second-degree manslaughter charge.

In his dissent, Judge Wachtler declared that the grand jury should not have charged Officer Sullivan with ''a reckless shooting,'' saying that an indictment based on an ''in-tentional shooting'' would have been warranted.

The evidence presented to the grand jury ''would have supported an indictment for murder or manslaughter based on an intentional shooting (to which the defense of justification was interposed),'' he said. ''In my view, the indictment charging the defendant with a reckless shooting is a compromise with no support in evidence.'' Sullivan Makes No Comment

On orders from his lawyer, Officer Sullivan - who had been restored to duty with a communications unit after the indictment was overturned - declined to comment. Yesterday, after the indictment was reinstated, Officer Sullivan was placed on modified assignment and barred from carrying a weapon or going on patrol.

''I think it was an erroneous decision on the part of the six judges,'' the officer's lawyer, Bruce Smirti, said. ''You had approximately 20 eyewitnesses who testified. The overwhelming number of them said that between the two shots there was an interval of no more than one second. Two witnesses testified that between the two shots Mrs. Bumpurs still had the knife in her hand and was advancing toward a fallen police officer.''

But the issue ''is whether the police officer used reasonable force or whether he used excessive force,'' said District Attorney Mario Merola of the Bronx. ''Obviously, one shot would have been justified. But if that shot took off part of her hand and rendered her defenseless, whether there was any need for a second shot, which killed her, that's the whole issue of whether you have reasonable force or excessive force.''

George S. Stone, the lawyer for the Bumpurs family, which has filed a $10 million civil suit against the city, said: ''There was certainly ample evidence to justify a case being made against Officer Sullivan. Let the truth come out and let a jury decide.''